On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 8:37 am Akshay S Dinesh <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> So, it became a platform abuse only when Facebook did what is okay > >> (showing notifications, sending emails on behalf of others) to do > >> something that is not okay (not informing people of what the > >> consultation process is, disrupting the process). > > > > > > But then going by your logic, why should the second thing be not ok... > Any > > political player - if you are going to make no distinctions between > > different types - have a right to be partisan. It can give its followers > > what information it wants to give and not give what it does not want to. > do > > we not all do such kind of things... The problem here therefore is the > > extent of structural social power enjoyed by a particular party, which in > > this case cna be called as 'platform power'. > > > > I think we will then have to define something that sounds like > "reasonable expectations" from any platform. For example, if a > platform's goal and motto in life is to support a political party, > they can "reasonably be expected" to show messages in support of that > political party. But, if, in the terms of service, etc. the platform > makes it clear that it will not be political, then we can reasonably > expect them to not show messages in support of any political party. > > > With due respect, I believe you have not fully covered the actions that > have led to suspicion, on the one hand, and a call for some grounded > behaviour, on the other, with respect to technological innovations that > transform the way humans behave towards each other. > One case in point is the belief that users who read a certain page were involuntarily included in lists of supporters of the message on that page. That is very different from posting a message. Imagine what we would think if the government assumed that simply reading a message makes us liable for its content, we would not be comfortable with our state. No, wait, that already happens a lot, judging by Palghar and Binayak Sen. Let's not campaign for allowing it to continue. If we can ask TRAI to force platforms into thus bringing out terms of > service style legal documents where each platform can define what is > "reasonable expectation" from them, including disclosures, political > leanings, funding, attitude, the way decisions are made, values, and > so on. If such a document can be mandated, then we can point out when > a platform goes against its own terms of service. > All that can be reasonably expected from any service is that it evolve towards an improvement of its service offering. There is no innovation that I can easily recall that was actually improved by attempting to dictate or restrict its form. In theory, if a social network platform wants to be partisan, evolution will determine its worth, but then the business that is operating on the basis of running this service should not expect any freebies in return from the state (and even providing freebies to a potential audience should be viewed with suspicion for breaching the conditions of natural evolution) for unfettered access to the humans who might populate the platform. Now, in this case, we see that the freebie from the state appears to be concessions and easing of systems developed for offline business, historically the only option, presumably in order to encourage this innovation. But, just like almost any other human enterprise, the innovation has potential downsides that need to be examined, if we have any claim to intelligence. Freebies must be seen in this context. Anything else is the state imposing its will just because it can. > For example, Facebook can be reasonably expected not to censor the > posts made by its users. If Facebook violates that expectation, they > are to be punished. I think this is called "anti-trust". Google is > reasonably expected to show the most relevant results for search > terms. If they manually change the order such that some competitor's > website is lower down the search results than it should have been, it > is "breach of trust", "violating reasonable expectation", or "platform > abuse". > > I said the platform itself has to write down their terms of service > and what is expected from them. Maybe it is also possible for TRAI to > define various platforms and what it expects from any particular > service that has to work in that category. For example, TRAI can issue > a list of expectations like "political neutrality, no censorship", etc > for the category "social network" and since Facebook would be > operating as a social network, they can be mandated to fulfil those > expectations. > > I think I know why I'm imagining such a complicated solution. > > >> The irony is not lost on me that if Facebook decides to show > >> notifications to vote in favor of a political party, it would not be > >> abusing anything, but rather just taking part in the "crudely > >> majoritarian and orchestrated opinion poll" that we call democracy. > >> And I don't think TRAI will have the moral authority (if not > >> technical) over whether networks can convey a political message to its > >> users. > > > > As argued above, I disagree... Would you be ok if google in the election > > days begins to show a partisan political message next to its search bar? > > This is what you are claiming to be ok, and arguing that law/ regulation > can > > have no moral authority to stop... > > > > I have the following beliefs: > 1) Internet organizations are no different from offline organizations. > 2) Organizations are no different from people. > 3) Organizations must have most of the same rights as people - like > freedom of expression. > 4) People must be able to voice their support or oppose of any > particular thing - no matter how powerful and influential they are. > 5) By extension, organizations must also be able to be partisan. > > For example, newspapers are partisan. They have hidden censorship. > There are political affiliations. The news, the tone of the news, the > positioning of the news, etc influence people in different intentional > ways. > > Because, the way I look at it, these organizations and platforms are > run by people. And people are partisan. Most platforms start small. > They are probably started by individuals. For example, Zuckerberg > might have started Facebook. It was a dating kind of site when it > started. When he starts such a site, Zuckerberg has the complete > control over what goes on it and what doesn't. For example, if he > chooses to give only two fields for gender - male and female, it is > his right, his opinion being stated on his website. > > What you say is, when a platform becomes sufficiently large, it has to > stop being opinionated. I have difficulty in agreeing with this > because this is too much in the shades of grey. How large can a > platform be before it has to be neutral? How neutral should a platform > be? What colours can they use? What words can they use? I could even > go on to imagine this convoluted example: "There are political parties > that thrive by making people think less. People think less when > they're watching videos rather than when they are reading text. So, do > platforms that show videos more than text act in favour of this > think-less party?" > > I could be settling for a cognitively simpler solution here because of > my ability to think in such shades of grey, but nevertheless, I think > the following is ideal: > > Platforms are people too. Platforms can be partisan. Everything in the > world is partisan. Influential people influence people. If that seems > to be wrong, then it is democracy that is wrong. But that shouldn't be > wrong. That's how democracy has always been. Democracy is about > winning people. That platforms can wrongly influence people must be > counteracted not by silencing platforms, but by giving voice to > alternate platforms. Silencing cannot work. There is no need for > silencing either. Human beings have always been like this. They > influence and get influenced. That gives a purpose to life. If > everyone acted rationally, it would have been much better, but much > boring. > > Yes, I'm arguing for allowing platforms to be partisan just so it can > become interesting to fight against them. I am probably too young. > > But I do believe that if we can protect everyone's voice (by opposing > things like Free Basics) partisan platforms will continue to make the > world interesting. > > I am deeply interested in your counter points here. > > Akshay > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in >
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
